“The good news is InfoWars has had the highest traffic it’s ever had — 5.6 million new subscribers in the past 48 hours — and so has my radio show,” Jones told the Daily Mail. “De-platforming doesn’t do anything —we already have the subscribers —it doesn’t do very much.”

I just tried the link to the InfoWars app and got a 404 error message. — jtl, 419

Last week’s purge of Alex Jones and InfoWars from Apple (iTunes), Facebook, YouTube (Google), and Spotify seems to have had an unexpected side effect. Upon the news that Jones was being removed from many of the top Internet platforms, subscriptions to his InfoWars app have skyrocketed. Ironically, the app has been listed on Google Play and iTunes as one of the top downloaded apps of last week.

Let’s see if the government is willing to settle this to keep from further embarrassing itself and robbing the people of their money to cover for their lawless actions… As far as I’m concerned, the prosecutors in all of this should be facing criminal charges, but we all know the government is not going to prosecute them.

They deserve every penny. Only problem is, they do not have the “staying power” that the government has–seeing as how the government’s revenue is gained at the point of a gun. — jtl, 419

There is good news today, though it would only be sweeter if the individuals who engaged in the lawlessness that they engaged in were actually held accountable rather than the taxpayers they are supposed to serve. Nevertheless, a $60 million lawsuit was filed on behalf of two men who faced multiple charges in the 2014 Bundy Ranch protest against federal lawlessness in 2014.

Klayman announced the filing of the lawsuit, which names federal prosecutors Steven Myhre, Daniel Schiess and Nadia Ahmed of the U.S. Attorney in Las Vegas, Nevada, as well as former FBI Director James Comey, former Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Neil Kornze, the FBI, and BLM as defendants.

“The politically motived malicious prosecutions against my clients and resulting cover-up (which also includes Cliven Bundy and his sons) violated every norm of due process and equal justice,” said Klayman. “I am confident that the defendants will be made to pay dearly by the jury. This punishment will help deter government prosecutorial misconduct, which has now been sanctioned even by our current Attorney General!”

Lovelien and Stewart were charged for allegedly conspiring with Cliven Bundy and his sons to threaten federal agents at gunpoint during the armed standoff. The plaintiffs’ complaint, which was filed in D.C. federal court (case no. 18-cv-01869) alleges that the prosecutors, without any evidence, falsely entrapped, charged and then maliciously prosecuted Lovelien and Stewart for obstruction of justice, along with several other demonstrably false charges.

Lovelien and Stewart were then denied bail by a Senator Harry Reid and Obama-appointed federal Judge Gloria Navarro and were left to “rot” in prison for two years before they were finally tried. During this time, the plaintiffs allegedly suffered great emotional distress, physical harm, and financial damage. The complaint also seeks punitive damages.

The jury ultimately acquitted both Lovelien and Stewart based on the complete lack of any evidence that they had committed any crime, much less conspired with Cliven Bundy and his sons.

Later, at the subsequent trial of Cliven Bundy and his sons, which not coincidentally resulted in a dismissal of their indictment, it was also revealed that the prosecutors had hidden exculpatory evidence and their witnesses from the FBI and BLM had lied, under oath, both at the Lovelien/Stewart trial and the Bundys’ trial. Judge Navarro was thus forced to dismiss the supersedeas indictment against the Bundys. To this date, Attorney General Sessions has protected his prosecutors and taken no action to even discipline them. Recently, Sessions outrageously authorized them to appeal the Bundy dismissal.

Let’s see if the government is willing to settle this to keep from further embarrassing itself and robbing the people of their money to cover for their lawless actions.

As far as I’m concerned, the prosecutors in all of this should be facing criminal charges, but we all know the government is not going to prosecute them.

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits. Although woven around the experiences and adventures of one man, this is also the story of the people who lived during the period of time in American history that an entire generation was betrayed It is the story of the dramatically changing times in which this personal odyssey took place. It is the story of the betrayal of an entire generation of Americans and particularly the 40% (of the military aged males) of that generation that fought the Vietnam war.

In the wake of the financial crisis of 2008, the economics profession suffered a blow to what reputation it had. But unlike most of his colleagues, Mark Thornton was vindicated by 2008. Mark has been a voice of sanity at times when the wild interventions of the Federal Reserve have caused otherwise sensible people to lose their minds.

Like this:

…don’t think they will stop with Infowars.com. If they can silence Alex then they will move on to censor Drudge, Zero Hedge, World Net Daily, Breitbart, Lew Rockwell and anyone else they feel gives the public too big a dose of the real truth. You have to realize one thing in our day about censors–they seek to hide the truth from us. The public has started, for the first time in my lifetime, to wake up to the truth of how this country has been screwed over for decades and the task of the censors is to make sure they don’t hold onto that memory by removing all the information pertaining to it and how it was done from public view.Here’s a great quote from an article on Zero Hedge today: “Big tech is in bed with big government to make sure you don’t get off their reservation.”

And next comes our guns. Is it time yet boys? What’s the holdup? — jtl, 419

Well, if you have been watching the frantic rush by the cultural Marxist media to censor Alex Jones off all their lists you have to come to one conclusion–this is one of the most well coordinated “spontaneous” purges we will ever see in our lifetime. The list of outfits that will no longer carry Alex Jones’ material is about half as long as your arm. Every media outlet from Facebook to Spotify is on it except Twitter and I expect they will fall in line shortly.

They will all give you noble-sounding reasons why they just can’t justify carrying Infowars.com any longer–but the truth of the matter is that http://infowars.com carries truth that they don’t really want the public to see and so they are all pushing to make sure the public sees as little of it as possible.

And as I’ve said before, don’t think they will stop with Infowars.com. If they can silence Alex then they will move on to censor Drudge, Zero Hedge, World Net Daily, Breitbart, Lew Rockwell and anyone else they feel gives the public too big a dose of the real truth. You have to realize one thing in our day about censors–they seek to hide the truth from us. The public has started, for the first time in my lifetime, to wake up to the truth of how this country has been screwed over for decades and the task of the censors is to make sure they don’t hold onto that memory by removing all the information pertaining to it and how it was done from public view.

During all my growing up years the only major “information” sources available were the New York Times (which printed all the news that fit) and the Washington Post, along with NBC, ABC, and CBS (the communist broadcasting system). Those “news outlets” had the corner on the market and they printed everything the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission wanted us to know–and nothing they didn’t.

In the last few years the alternative media has blossomed, and along with it the alt.right media and we started finding out stuff the “big 5” really didn’t want us to know. And along came the internet, which was really responsible for both Ron Paul and Donald Trump doing as well as they did.

But now the Deep State has decided that all this truth-telling has gone far enough–it’s got to cease as the Deep States agenda is in jeopardy. Can’t have people waking up and realizing what they are doing to them and starting to push back. They need to start getting us deplorables back in line where we just sit down and shut up. So bring on the censors. They can shut down the truth-tellers and start telling us how much they hurt “our democracy” and “our (really their) American way of life” with the truth.

Don’t for one minute think the censors will stop with Alex Jones. If they can silence him (which I hope they are not able to) then they will attack all the other people I have mentioned in this article and lots that I didn’t mention. I think their final aim is the total destruction of the alternative media in every way, shape and form it exists in. This is to be a thorough, complete purge, Soviet style. I think that’s where they are going with this. A cultural atrocity until no one is left but their spokesmen.

And for the Southern Heritage folks that don’t think this has anything to do with them, all you have to do is look at their ongoing attacks on our flags and monuments in the past several years to realize that we are on their to do list too. How much of our truth have they censored out with their “Civil War was only fought over slavery” blarney? You all know what I am talking about and in your hearts you have to realize that what is going on now in the political realm will affect you and your children.

How many of you have checked out Infowars.com lately to find out what really goes on in the country? No fun, you say? Of course it’s no fun–but you need to know!

Then there is the plan that Senate Democrats are planning for a government takeover of the internet. Why don’t you check that one out on the internet. Try to see what you can find on duckduckgo.com There’s lots of stuff there you don’t see other places.

Make no mistake, the Leftists and their paymasters among us intend to institute, via censorship, a complete purge of all internet sites where you can pick up even a few grains of truth. It’s in the works now and one thing you can do to slow it down is to start viewing on a regular basis those sites they are trying to censor.

Here’s a great quote from an article on Zero Hedge today: “Big tech is in bed with big government to make sure you don’t get off their reservation.”

edited by

Murray N. Rothbard was the father of what some call Radical Libertarianism or Anarcho-Capitalism which Hans-Hermann Hoppe described as “Rothbard’s unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.”

This book applies the principles of this “unified moral science” to environmental and natural resource management issues.

The book started out life as an assigned reading list for a university level course entitled Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View.

As I began to prepare to teach the course, I quickly saw that there was a plethora of textbooks suitable for universal level courses dealing with environmental and natural resource economics. The only problem was that they were all based in mainstream neo-classical (or Keynesian) theory. I could find no single collection of material comprising a comprehensive treatment of environmental and natural resource economics based on Austrian Economic Theory.

However, I was able to find a large number of essays, monographs, papers delivered at professional meetings and published from a multitude of sources. This book is the result. It is composed of a collection of research reports and essays by reputable scientists, economists, and legal experts as well as private property and free market activists.

The book is organized into seven parts: I. Environmentalism: The New State Religion; II. The New State Religion Debunked; III. Introduction to Environmental and Natural Resource Economics; IV. Interventionism: Law and Regulation; V. Pollution and Recycling; VI. Property Rights: Planning, Zoning and Eminent Domain; and VII. Free Market Conservation. It also includes an elaborate Bibliography, References and Recommended Reading section including an extensive Annotated Bibliography of related and works on the subject.

The intellectual level of the individual works ranges from quite scholarly to informed editorial opinion.

The state and its cronyist friends have built a world that seeks to silence our perspectives. We must recognize that arguments and content mean nothing if conduits for disseminating them are shut down.

I’ve been saying for years now that Lew Rockwell is my “mine canary.” When they come for old Lew, I’m outta’ here. — jtl, 419

We are accustomed to predatory language from politicians, but this issuance from Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy’s twitter account yesterday is particularly telling:

When a politician, particularly a US senator, tells companies what they “must” do, there is a clear threat of government action if they don’t. What exactly does Mr. Murphy imply for noncompliance? Harsh new regulations? Antitrust inquiries? Tax audits?

What follows is a business model we have been following that has worked very well for us and for our clientele.

We are seeking individual ranchers to sponsor/host workshops . The sponsor/host (and spouse or key employee) get the training at his/her ranch for no charge. This is an extra special benefit to the host as his/her land will be used for the “lab” work and hands on demonstrations. This provides a great start in the implementation of his/her program.

In return, he/she takes care of the logistics involved in putting on the event. This includes arranging for the venue, booking a block of rooms for lodging, arranging for meals (if any), putting out the advertising, setting and collecting the fees and so forth.

We are then responsible for putting on the workshop.

During the interim we will each keep track of our out of pocket costs (from our end, that will be mostly travel and lodging). Then, when it is all over, we both are reimbursed our out of pocket costs and split any funds remaining 50:50.

If this sounds like something you might be interested in, click here and let us know. If the link won’t work for you, copy and paste info@landandlivestockinternational.com into your browser.

Conservation Easements and Land Trusts, the Ultimate Faustian Marriage

There have been encroachments on private property over the past one hundred plus years, but now we are seeing a steady army of those who would take away our property rights.

I am reminded: I was president of our High School Debate Club back in the early 60s. There was always one topic that was on every debate we had. In those days it was called “Federal Aid to Education.” At the time the public schools were owned and ran at the local level. There was no such thing as a uS Department of Education.

Those that approved touted all the “goodies” we would be able to get for our kids. The “old mossbacks” admonished them–you take their money and they will tell you how to run your business.

As it turned out, the old mossbacks were absolutely right.

And today I admonish you: No matter what the good or service, if you take ANYTHING from the FedGov, there will ALWAYS be strings attached. Caveat Emptor

“Whether the mask is labeled fascism, democracy, or dictatorship of the proletariat, our great adversary remains the apparatus—the bureaucracy, the police, the military. Not the one facing us across the frontier of the battle lines, which is not so much our enemy as our brothers’ enemy, but the one that calls itself our protector and makes us its slaves. No matter what the circumstances, the worst betrayal will always be to subordinate ourselves to this apparatus and to trample underfoot, in its service, all human values in ourselves and in others.”—Simone Weil, French philosopher and political activist

Tom DeWeese wrote in Sustainable, that there are thousands of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working with the UN to subvert property rights. Of course, they don’t just announce that property rights are now null and void. That would create a stir. Instead, they use code words and language that sound innocent and helpful to our society. One such tool that is now being used to target rural lands for takings is the Conservation Easement, and its threat is growing.

There is one NGO Tom didn’t write about, yet it may be the worst of them all. It is a ‘stealth NGO’; like many others it masquerades as a quasi-governmental body. I will get to it, but first let me give you some background.

Background

The right to own property is one of the main pillars of freedom. Numerous Revolutionary patriots wrote about the necessity of property rights for freedom; without that right they could not own the printing presses to share their grievances and promote the rights of man and desires for self-ownership. There have been encroachments on private property over the past one hundred plus years, but now we are seeing a steady army of those who would take away our property rights. As Tom described in his book, the Conservation Easement is but one of the tools NGO destroyers are using to deprive us of our freedom.

Our founding fathers drafted the Constitution to form a limited federal government, designed to take care of only those duties that were truly national business. All other powers were left to the state governments or the people. Article One, Section 8, Clause 17, offers the only provision in the Constitution for federal ownership of land. It provides for the creation of Washington, D.C., as the seat of the federal government, and allows the federal government to purchase lands in a state with “…the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;”[i]

Most older Americans know the Magna Carta’s role in property rights law in the Constitution, but, since it is no longer taught in schools, here is a very short explanation:

“Americans of the founding generation’s .. . . views were strongly shaped by the English constitutional tradition. Colonial Americans revered Magna Carta (1215) as a safeguard against arbitrary government. Several provisions of this famous document protected the rights of property owners: 1) The king agreed not take, imprison, or disseize a person of property “except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land”. The “law of the land “clause was the forerunner of the due process norm. 2) The king promised not to take provisions without immediate payment. This language acknowledged the principle that government must pay the owner when it acquires private property.”[ii]

From that also came the Rule against Perpetuities

“Under the Common Law, the principle that no interest inproperty is valid unless it vests not later than twenty-one years, plus the periods of gestation, after some life or lives in being which exist at the time of the creation of the interest.

The courts developed the rule during the seventeenth century in order to restrict a person’s power to control perpetually the ownership and possession of his or her property after death and to endure the transferability of property. The rule includes the period of gestation to cover cases of posthumous birth.”[iii]

As I see read this, our founding fathers and their progeny felt strongly about the need for property rights and their protection. In fact, David Upham of FEE, says, . . . “insofar as the Founders made any distinction between property rights and other individual rights, they insisted that property rights were at least as important as personal rights. In Federalist 54, James Madison stated tersely: “Government is instituted no less for the protection of the property than of the persons of individuals.”[iv]

Gary Pecquet, also from FEE, notes, “The Founding Fathers upheld the economic view of property. They believed that private property ownership, as defined under common law, pre-existed government. The state and federal governments were the mere contractual agents of the people, not sovereign lords over them. All rights, not specifically delegated to the government, remained with the people –- including the common-law provisions of private property. Consequently, the constitutional rights regarding free speech, freedom of religion, the right of assembly, and private property rights are all claims that individuals may hold and exercise against the government itself. In brief, private property refers to the rights of owners to use their possessions which are enforceable against all non-owners – even the government.”[v]

Today

How does one assault property rights? Not directly. Like most other rights, long deemed to be natural rights and unassailable, property rights will have to be taken like the salami – one slice at a time. The attack on the essence of property rights has been going on for over 100 years. But only those waging this attack knew there was a war going on. It started as just a desire by one man to preserve green space and historic sites near Boston. His quest also bore the Land Trust.

The new version of Conservation Easements (CE) was brought slowly and gently into the picture, but they worked so well, you would think they were on steroids. Like other programs that produce mega-bucks and mega-power, Conservation Easements became a hot commodity – not for the landowner but for those who wanted to get rich quick on someone else’s land: Land Trusts.

“Conservation easement is a deeded transfer of an interest in real property to a qualified charity that results in a tax deduction in exchange for the contribution. The purpose is to conserve or protect the land or its resources for future generation. However, the conservative easement allows owners to retain other private property rights and to live on and use their land. A conservation easement is legally binding. The easement creates a legally enforceable land preservation agreement between a landowner and a government agency. The restrictions of the easement run with the land. Conservation easements are binding on all future owners of the property.”[vi]

The first Land Trust was established in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in 1891, to preserve “beautiful and historic places” around Boston. Almost a half-decade after Charles Eliot, the New Englander who proposed the easement, conservation easements were next used by the National Park Service to purchase land along parkways. Those actions, another half-decade later, would be the grounds used to invalidate the Rule of Perpetuities. We cannot go back and watch how the Greens or, more likely, their lawyers conceived of the idea of using conservation easements to first tie up lands, then, when that became easy and was almost un-objected to, they kept ratcheting up the ‘taking’ without ever having to worry about the Rule of Perpetuities. But we can see exactly how it is being done.

In the chapter titled, “Attack of the NGOs in Sustainable, DeWeese wrote “One rarely hears of it. Few elected officials raise an eyebrow. The media makes no mention of it. Yet, power is slowly slipping away from our locally-elected representatives into the hands of private, non-elected people and organizations. They come equipped with their own agenda, enforced by thousands of dedicated activists — and armed with a bunch of money. In much the same way Mao Tse-tung had his Red Guards, so the forces for global transformation have their NGOs. They may well be our masters tomorrow, and most people don’t even know who or what they are.

“Influencing the UN and helping to write policy are thousands of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). These are private groups, each of which seeks to implement a specific political agenda according to its own charter. There are hundreds of these groups covering every issue of Sustainable Development. NGOs are also referred to a ‘Civil Society’ in UN documents. A quick look at local government planning policies will see them referred to as ‘Stakeholders’ for the community, even though they are seldom from that area. Through the UN infrastructure, particularly through the UNEP, they have great power.”

An NGO is not just any private group hoping to influence policy. True NGOs are officially sanctioned by the United Nations. That means they not only can sit in on international meetings, but can actively participate in creating policy, right along side government representatives and diplomats.[vii]

Conservations Easements and Land Trusts (LT) grew slowly. It wasn’t until Sustainable Development became the issue du jour that the power elite (or most likely, their Green minions in the NGOs) figured out that CEs could be goldmines for little financial outlay. Once it was discovered that, not only could Land Trusts gobble up land at very low prices, they could turn around and sell these to the government for full price or they could swap the land for preferential land belonging to the government. Oh, did I forget to mention, Land Trusts have to be NGOs.

The NGO that DeWeese didn’t mention in his book is the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, (or Uniform Law Commission, ULC) which was established in 1892. It purportedly “provides states with non-partisan, well-conceived and well-drafted legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas of state statutory law.

“. . . the organization also utilizes input from legal experts, and advisors and observers representing the views of other legal organizations or interests that will be subject to the proposed laws.”[viii]

The ULC wrote the Uniform Conservation Easement Act (UCEA) in 1981, which did away with the Rule of Perpetuities — and no one said a word. One day we were secure in our property rights under the Rule, and the next it was gone. No one squawked that it would destroy property rights. Where were the legal scholars?

Cui Bono? The National Historic Preservation, National Association of Realtors, and the National Park Service, among others were advisors on the UCEA. Tom and I are asking each other why the National Association of Realtors would promote an act that removes the value of real estate. But, somehow, they are all benefitting (for now) in CEs.

The Law of Perpetuity says you do not get to control how your property is used after you die. But, somehow, the ULC with its CE Act:

• enables durable restrictions and affirmative obligations to be attached to real property to protect natural and historic resources. Under the conditions spelled out in the Act, the restrictions and obligations are immune from certain common law impediments which might otherwise be raised. The Act maximizes the freedom of the creators of the transaction to impose restrictions on the use of land and improvements in order to protect them, and it allows a similar latitude to impose affirmative duties for the same purposes. In each instance, if the requirements of the Act are satisfied, the restrictions or affirmative duties are binding upon the successors and assigns of the original parties.

• The Act does not itself impose restrictions or affirmative duties. It merely allows the parties to do so within a consensual arrangement freed from common law impediments, if the conditions of the Act are complied with.

• These conditions are designed to assure that protected transactions serve defined protective purposes (Section 1(1)) and that the protected interest is in a “holder” which is either a governmental body or a charitable organization having an interest in the subject matter (Section 1(2)). The interest may be created in the same manner as other easements in land (Section 2(a)). The Act also enables the parties to establish a right in a third party to enforce the terms of the transaction (Section 3(a)(3)) if the possessor of that right is also a governmental unit or charity (Section 1(3)).

• The easement alternative is favored in the Act for three reasons. First, lawyers and courts are most comfortable with easements and easement doctrine, less so with restrictive covenants and equitable servitudes, and can be expected to experience severe confusion if the Act opts for a hybrid fourth interest. Second, the easement is the basic less-than-fee interest at common law; the restrictive covenant and the equitable servitude appeared only because of then-current, but now outdated, limitations of easement doctrine. Finally, non-possessory interests satisfying the requirements of covenant real or equitable servitude doctrine will invariably meet the Act’s less demanding requirements as “easements.” Hence, the Act’s easement orientation should not prove prejudicial to instruments drafted as real covenants or equitable servitudes, although the converse would not be true.

• There are both practical and philosophical reasons for not subjecting conservation easements to a public ordering system. The Act has the relatively narrow purpose of sweeping away certain common law impediments which might otherwise undermine the easements’ validity, (emphasis mine), particularly those held in gross. If it is the intention to facilitate private grants that serve the ends of land conservation and historic preservation, moreover, the requirement of public agency approval adds a layer of complexity which may discourage private actions. Organizations and property owners may be reluctant to become involved in the bureaucratic, and sometimes political, process which public agency participation entails. Placing such a requirement in the Act may dissuade a state from enacting it for the reason that the state does not wish to accept the administrative and fiscal responsibilities of such a program.[ix]

The Public/Private Partnership angle from the inside

Now add to this the public/private partnership between Land Trusts and the government. Watch how your tax dollars go to benefitting NGOs while they are working to take private property – and sell it to the government at a huge profit.

Role of Government

“Government must be an active participant. First, where necessary, it should use its police powers, through the exercise of planning and zoning, to regulate subdivision and thus stabilize rural land use.. . . Although private covenants, like those embodied in conservation easements, might theoretically provide stability, the process of negotiating with individual landowners is just too slow to be practical in the real world.. . .Only by permanently retiring the development rights to farmland can true conservation be achieved. Remuneration of landowners – whether in cash or tax reduction or by some other means – is a necessary inducement to this kind of land use restriction. The private conservation community in America recognizes the principle but quite simply lacks the resources to carry it out on the scale necessary to protect a critical mass of farmland.”[x]

Role of Private Partners

“If government is an essential participant in agricultural conservation, action by the private sector is also necessary. It is axiomatic that in acquiring land, private organizations are quicker to act, freer to structure creative conservation transactions, and in general more flexible and aggressive than government agencies. With enough expertise and venture capital, they can simply reach more landowners and nail down more deals virtually than any bureaucracy. These qualities are perhaps even more important in agricultural conservation than in the preservation of habitat and scenery.”[xi]

“. . . government agencies turned to land trusts for assistance. Land trusts were not constrained by regulatory procedures and had employees and members who were more familiar with the methods of natural open space protection. As noted by a member of the Alachua Conservation Land Trust of Gainesville, Florida: “Land trusts can operate with less public scrutiny than a government agency. Trusts don’t have to give public notice or hold hearings on their actions” (Thomas 1999, 15). When a private land trust buys land in advance of a government agency’s ability to attain it, then sells the land to that agency, it is called a pre-acquisition. Land trusts are said to “bring 13 agility to projects” (Endicott 1993, 4), because they are able to quickly purchase land by more flexible means, such as at auctions or through installments, than are available to government agencies. Pre-acquisition enables the land trust to quickly obtain the land, giving the public agency time to raise the funds to purchase the property and perform the necessary public hearings. The land trust assures the government agency that the land will not be sold in the interim. The practice of pre-acquisition also generates direct monetary benefits to the land trust involved. Because of the tax deductions available for individuals who sell or donate land or easements to land trusts, land trusts are able to acquire land or easements at below market prices. When a land trust acquires this land, the organization can then sell the entire property or easements to a government agency at market value, realizing the difference. Thus, for example, in 1989 the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) paid The Nature Conservancy (TNC) $1.4 million for land TNC had bought for $1.26 million. TNC was able to increase the amount of land protected from residential and commercial development while also increasing its funding. Transactions such as these have played a growing role in the spread of land trusts, but also mean that acreage held by a land trust is no longer always an accurate measure of its activity.”[xii]

Now, that is a win-win – for the government and the Land Trust. A lose-lose for the property owners and America. But the biggest loss is the abrogation of the Rule Against Perpetuities, thanks to the Uniform Conservation Easement Act. With this, on top of the change in the law for eminent domain from the Kelo case making the ‘takings clause’ in the Constitution null and void, the government can take our property any time it wishes. We no longer have a legal leg to stand on. We are SLAVES.

“Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own efforts, the man who has no right to the product of his efforts has no means to sustain his life. The man, who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.” Ayn Rand

Kathleen Marquardt

KathleenMarquardt@americanpolicy.org

Kathleen Marquardt has been in the freedom movement since before it was called that. She was founder and chairman of Putting People First, a non-profit organization combatting the animal rights movement. Her book, AnimalScam: the Beastly Abuse of Human Rights, was published by Regnery in 1993. Kathleen has been Vice President of American Policy Center since 2000 and is the Agenda 21/Sustainable Development expert for Rocky Top Freedom Campaign. She was a contributing writer and researcher for Freedom Advocates.

All your base are belong to us. A leaked memo circulating among Senate Democrats contains a host of bonkers authoritarian proposals for regulating digital platforms, purportedly as a way to get tough on Russian bots and fake news. To save American trust in “our institutions, democracy, free press, and markets,” it suggests, we need unprecedented and undemocratic government intervention into online press and markets, including “comprehensive (GDPR-like) data protection legislation” of the sort enacted in the E.U.

Titled “Potential Policy Proposals for Regulation of Social Media and Technology Firms,” the draft policy paper—penned by Sen. Mark Warner and leaked by an unknown source to Axios—the paper starts out by noting that Russians have long spread disinformation, including when…

Desert Bighorn Sheep are the rarest of four wild sheep found in North America. A Circle Ranch guest shot this 169-5/8 Boone & Crockett bighorn ram on July 28, 2018.

We see rams this big – or bigger – all the time. In our experience, sheep are easy to raise, and will establish in areas considered ‘marginal’ as sheep habitat, using these common-sense guidelines:

Increase water. Add lots of free water everywhere. The more locations, the better. Make drinkers and supplies big enough to support large cattle herds, multiple wild species, and, useable by quail and small animals. There is no such thing as too much water and you will be amazed at how it increases numbers and diversity of wildlife.

Increase biodiversity. Bighorn are interdependent (symbiotic) with other prey species, predators, and large grazers. Bighorn – and all the others –cannot thrive without this full complement of animals.

Mimic nature. Sheep can’t be grown like soybeans or feedlot cattle. Be very skeptical of wildlife ‘management’ practices. Except for water additions and fence modifications, most waste money and actually harm sheep and other wild animals over long terms – sometimes catastrophically. Use the savings for your water projects.

Summer is the season where temperatures have historically hovered around a comfortable 70 degrees most days while occasionally reaching a slightly warm 80 degrees. Perhaps the Deep South would rarely reach 85 degrees in during a historic heatwave before global warming. But now summers are hot – real hot. And global warming is to blame. At least that is the message conveyed by the establishment media, trying to reprogram impressionable readers and viewers into believing this summer marks the beginning of a global warming apocalypse.

Science is the enemy of global warming alarmists. And objective scientific data is that enemy on steroids. Let’s take a look at what the scientific data reveal:

Source: drroyspencer.com

The above chart represents global temperatures as measured by NASA satellite instruments. Global temperatures were warmer last year (including last summer) and the year before that in comparison to 2018 and this summer. Each year there are regional differences that make some areas of the globe warmer than others.

It turns out that temperatures this summer happen to be regionally warmer among the population centers of North America and Europe. As a result, even as global temperatures are lower this year and lower this summer than the past two years and summers, the media can take advantage of regional variances to mislead people in America and Europe into believing summertime temperatures this year illustrate record-breaking, global warming-infused heat. And, of course, the media conveniently fail to mention that 2017 and 2016 summer temperatures in American population centers were relatively cool.

There are a couple more points about the above graph that deserve mentioning. The satellite data start in 1979, which was the end of a 30-year cooling period. As such, global temperatures would be expected to rebound from that cool period and grow warmer from 1979 through 2018. Also, the total warming during the past 40 years has been merely 0.5 degrees Celsius (approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit). That amount of warming is barely noticeable, if noticeable at all, without sensitive and precise scientific instruments taking the measurements.

When it comes to global warming, the establishment media love to hype. Summertime is a perfect time for that hype. But don’t believe the hype; believe the scientific data.

Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual. This is the ideal squeal to A Handbook for Ranch Managers. Although the ecological principles remain the same, what was originally known as “The Savory Grazing Method” now answers to a multitude of different names: ranching for profit, holistic management, managed grazing, mob grazing, management intensive grazing, etc. Land & Livestock International, Inc. uses “Restoration Grazing” under its “Managing the Ranch as a Business” program.” No mater what you call it, this summary and synopsis will guide you step by step through the process and teach you how to use it as it was originally intended. No more excuses for failing to complete your grazing plans.

Yep, once I was suspended from FaceBook for using the word “fag” so you need to be sure you know what they are calling themselves on any particular day.
I suppose we should have expected this because we were winning on the Internet , hands down, for several years – jtl, 419

In 2018, we have seen an unprecedented effort to censor conservatives. YouTube has shut down hundreds of alternative voices, Facebook has been taking down hundreds of pages, and Twitter has been so aggressive with shadowbanning that members of Congress are up in arms about it. Extremely big names such as Alex Jones and Mike Adams are under relentless assault right now, and as you can see from this article, they are coming after the little guys too.

Yep, once I was suspended from FaceBook for using the word “fag” so you need to be sure you know what they are calling themselves on any particular day.

I suppose we should have expected this because we were winning on the Internet , hands down, for several years – jtl, 419